Appendix — Bowman v. Robinson

fi. -"

a f &

of rr iL@D

03 302 Aus 7 2003

REF IG OF THE CLERK

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

BRUCE F. BOWMAN, Supreme Court

of Illinois

Petitioner, No. 18666

Commission

v. No. 01 IA 2001

ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION

AND DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION,

MARY ROBINSON, Administrator,

Respondent.

ee ee a a Le a ee

X.

SEPARATE VOLUME APPENDIX TO

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

BRUCE F. BOWMAN, 0264881

Petitioner-Appellant

1741 West Galena Blvd.

Aurora, Illinois 60506

Telephone (630) 844-1741

Wisconsin Telephone and MCI ‘

Voice Mail (262) 248-1539 .

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

INDEX TO

SEPARATE VOLUME APPENDIX

TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI OF

BRUCE F. BOWMAN

INFORMATION RETYPED 9 1 x 6 1 PAPER

RoA A US

1. SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS ORDER

MOTION FOR REHEARING ON PETITION

FOR LEAVE TO FILE EXCEPTIONS

DENIED 7-7-2003 US 1

2. SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS ORDER

PETITION OF BRUCE F. BOWMAN FOR

LEAVE TO FILE EXCEPTIONS TO

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF

REVIEW BOARD IS DENIED. RESPONDENT

IS TRANSFERRED TQ DISABILITY INACTIVE

STATUS UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF COURT

RULE 758, AS RECOMMENDED BY THE

REVIEW BOARD.

FILED 5-22-3002 US 2

3. SYNOPSIS OF REVIEW BOARD

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

FILED 1-29-2003 US 3-4

4. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF REVIEW BOARD

FILED 1-29-2003 US 5-9

INDEX 1

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

INDEX TO

SEPARATE VOLUME APPENDIX

TO PETITION OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OF

BRUCE F. BOWMAN

INFORMATION RETYPED 9 1 X 6 1s PAPER

RoA A US

5. SYNOPSIS OF HEARING BOARD

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

FILED 6-18-2002 RoA C001662 Al US 10

6. REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING BOARD

FILED 6-18-2002 RoA C001663-1680 A2-19 US 11-31

7. 6-11-2003 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

MOTION FOR REHEARING

2-21-2003 PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

EXCEPTIONS

RULE 758 MENTAL INFIRMITY OR

MENTAL DISORDER US 32-56

8. 6-29-2003 LETTER ORDER ENTERED

TODAY BY SUPREME COURT

RoA C000254 A319 US 57

9. 6-29-2003 ORDER MOTION FOR

MENTAL EXAMINATION OF RESPONDENT

PURSUANT TO SUPREME COURT

RULE 760 IS ALLOWED

FILED 6-29-2001 RoA C000255 A320 US 58

INDEX 2

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

| INDEX TO

SEPARATE VOLUME APPENDIX

TO PETITION OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OF

BRUCE F. BOWMAN

INFORMATION RETYPED 9 14 X 6 1s PAPER

RoA A US

10. CERTIFICATION, CLERK OF THE

SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS, ...

Filed in this office on the

11" day of May A.D. 2001

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto

subscribed my name and affixed the Seal of

said court this 29"" day of June 2001

FILED 6-29-2001

RoA C000256, mailing 257-8 A321-323 US59

Resp. Ex. 24 RoA C00256 A324 US 59

11. 11-15-2001 ARDC ORDER Motion for

Rehearing to Strike Administrator’s Rule 253

Report, and barr witnesses from being called

By Administrator

DENIED RoA C000762 A238 US 60

12. 9-24-2001 ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT ORDER

Motion to Vacate Court’s Order for Examination

And for certain other relief

DENIED RoA C000677 A344 US 61

INDEX 3

13.

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

INDEX TO

SEPARATE VOLUME APPENDIX

TO PETITION OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OF

BRUCE F. BOWMAN

INFORMATION RETYPED 9 14 X 6 1 PAPER

RoA A US

January 2001 ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT RULES AND

ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION AND

DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION RULES 753, 758, 760, 235,

251, 253, 260, 276

These rules are in January 2001 Attorney Registration and

Disciplinary Commission gray book and not consecutively

numbered, and they are evidence, 1-28-2002 Hearing,

Respondent Exhibit 15.

See Respondent’s 1-28-2002 Table of Exhibits Pages 1 and 2.

1-28-2002 | Hearing Board Hearing Respondent Exhibit 15

in the gray book, January 2001 Rules of the

Supreme Court of Illinois

and refer to

1-28-2002 Hearing Board Hearing Respondent Exhibit 16

is laminated cover January 2001 Rules of the

Supreme Court

and refer to

1-28-2002 Hearing Board Hearing Respendent Exhibit 17

is laminated page 42 January 2001 Rules of the

Supreme Court

INDEX 4

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

INDEX TO

SEPARATE VOLUME APPENDIX

TO PETITION OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OF

BRUCE F. BOWMAN

INFORMATION RETYPED 9 14 X 6 18 PAPER

RoA A US

and refer to

1-28-2001 Hearing Board Hearing Respondent Exhibit 18

is laminated page 43 January 2001 Rules of the

Supreme Court.

RULE 753 Inquiry, Hearing, and Review Boards

(b) — Filing a Complaint US 62

(c) Hearing Board

...and non lawyers... US 62-63

RULE 758 Mental Disability or

Addiction to Drugs or Intoxicants US 63-64

RULE 760 Appointment of Medical Experts US 64-65

RULE 235 Motions in Regard to Pleadings US 65

RULE 251 _ Discovery US 65

RULE 253 _ Disclosure of Witnesses US 66

RULE 260 _—_‘ Prehearing Conferences

(a) Prehearing Conference US 66

(b) Status Conference US 67

RULE 276 Exhibits

Each party must appear at hearing US 67

14. ILLINOIS COMPILED STATUTES

735 ILCS 5/2-607

(a) Bills of Particulars

INDEX 5

MLR. 18666

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS

Inre: BRUCE F. BOWMAN ) Attorney Registration and

)

Attorney/Respondent. _)

ORDER

This cause coming to be heard on the motion of the attorney-

respondent, a response having been filed by the petitioner, and the

court being fully advised in the premises:

IT IS ORDER that the motion for rehearing on the petition for

leave to file exceptions is denied.

Order entered by the court.

FILED

JUL 7 — 2003

SUPREME COURT CLERK

Ust

(Seal)

SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS

SUPREME COURT BUILDING

SPRINGFIELD 62702

Juleann Hornyak First District Office

Clerk of the Court May 22,2003 20" Floor

217-782-2035 160 No. LaSalle St.

Chicago 60601

312-793-1332

Telecommunications Device Telecommunications

For the Deaf For the Deaf

(312) 524-8132 (312) 793-1333

Mr. Bruce F. Bowman

1741 West Galena Blvd.

Aurora, IL 60506

TODAY THE COURT ENTERED THE FOLLOWING ORDER:

M.R. 18666 —In re: Bruce F. Bowman. Disciplinary Commission.

The petition by respondent Bruce F. Bowman for leave

to file exceptions to the report and recommendation of

the Review Board is denied. Respondent is transferred

to disability inactive status until further order of the

Court pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 758, as

recommended by the Review Board.

Order entered by the Court.

cc: Mr. Steven R. Splitt

Ms. Rosalyn B. Kaplan

Mr. Kenneth Jablonski, One Prudential Plaza

US Z

IN RE BRUCE F. BOWMAN,

Respondent-Appellant

No.01 IA 2001

CONFIDENTIAL

Synopsis of Review Board Report and Recommendation

(January 2003)

The Administrator filed a petition under Supreme

Court Rule 758, seeking a determination whether Bowman was

mentally incapacitated from practicing law. The Supreme Court

granted the Administrator’s motion for a mental examination, and

Bowman was examined by a psychiatrist.

Bowman denied disability and raised numerous issues

before the Hearing Board.

Following a hearing, the Hearing Board found that

Bowman was incapacitated from practicing law and recommended

that he be transferred to disability inactive status, pending removal of

the disability.

Bowman filed exceptions, alleging multiple errors by

the Hearing Board. The Administrator seeks to uphold the Hearing

Board’s finding of disability and recommendation of transfer to

US 9

inactive status.

The psychiatrist who examined Bowman pursuant to

the Court’s order testified that Bowman suffered from a delusional

disorder, exhibited overt paranoid psychotic symptoms, and had

extremely impaired judgment. While other witnesses, including

Bowman, testified, no other mental health professional testified.

The Review Board upheld the Hearing Board’s

finding of incapacity, given the applicable standard of review, and

agreed with the Hearing Board’s recommendation that Bowman be

transferred to disability inactive status under Supreme Court Rule

758, until further order of the Court.

us 4

BEFORE THE REVIEW BOARD

OF THE

ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION AND

DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION

In the Matter of: )

BRUCE F. BOWMAN, ) No. 01 IA 2002

Respondent-Appellant, ) CONFIDENTIAL

)

No. 264881. )

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE REVIEW BOARD

On May 3, 2001, the Administrator-Appellee filed a

petition pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 758 (188 Ill.2d R. 758),

seeking a determination whether Respondent-Appellant, Bruce F.

Bowman, was incapacitated from practicing law due to mental

iafirmity and/or mental disorder and whether he should be transferred

to disability inactive status or permitted to practice subject to

conditions.

On the Administrator’s motion, the Supreme Court

entered an order for a mental examination of Bowman. S. Dale

Loomis, M.D. conducted the examination. Dr. Loomis, a psychiatrist,

met with Bowman on three separate occasions. Bowman took the

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), an objective

ne 3

psychological test, as part of the examination. Mayo Clinic analyzed

Bowman’s answers to the MMPI and provided Dr. Loomis with a

report of its analysis.

Bowman raised various issues prior to hearing.

Ultimately, Bowman filed an answer, denying mental disability.

After a hearing, the Hearing Board found that

Bowman was incapacitated from practicing law and recommended

that he be transferred to disability inactive status, pending removal of

the disability.

The matter is before the Review Board on Bowman’s

exceptions. Bowman objects to the Hearing Board’s findings and

recommendation, on numerous grounds. The Administrator seeks to

uphold the Hearing Board’s findings that Bowman is incapacitated

and its recommendation of transfer to disability inactive status.

We have carefully reviewed the briefs and the record

and considered the issues raised by both parties. We affirm the

findings and conclusions of the Hearing Board.

In a proceeding under Supreme Court Rule 758 (188

Ill. 2d R. 758), the Administrator has the burden of proving mental

incapacity, by clear and convincing evidence. In re Eckberg, 192 III.

2d 70, 84, 733 N.E.2d 1244, 248 Ill. Dec. 246 (2000). Clear and

convincing evidence requires more than a preponderance of the

evidence, though it is less stringent than the criminal standard of

proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Bazydlo v. Volant, 164 Ill. 2d 207,

647 N.E.2d 273, 207 Ill. Dec. 311, 314 (1995); People v. Williams,

US 6

143 Ill. 2d 477, 484, 577 N.E.2d 762, 160 Ill. Dec. 437 (1990).

On review, the Hearing Board’s factual findings are

not disturbed unless they are against the manifest weight of the

evidence. Eckberg, 192 Ill. 2d at 84-85, 733 N.E.2d 1244, 248 Ill.

Dec. 246. A finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence

when an opposite conclusions is clearly apparent or the fact found

appears unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the evidence.

Leonardi v. Loyola University, 168 III. 2d 83, 106, 658 N.E. 2d 450,

212 Ill. Dec. 968 (1995). The Hearing Board’s findings of fact

deserve deference because the Hearing Board is able to observe the

witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, judge credibility, and

resolve conflicting testimony. Eckberg, 192 III. 2d at 84, 733 N.E.2d

1244, 248 Ill. Dec. 246. The Hearing Board’s recommendation as to

disposition is advisory. Eckberg, 192 Ill. 2d at 85, 733 N.E.2d 1244,

248 Ill. Dec. 246.

The Hearing Board’s finding of incapacity here is

amply supported by the evidence, including the testimony of Dr.

Loomis. Dr. Loomis testified to Bowman’s general mental state. His

testimony was confined to matters within his competence as a

psychiatrist.

Dr. Loomis testified that Bowman had a delusional

disorder with persecutory features. While Bowman’s general

personality remained intact, Bowman exhibited overt paranoid

psychotic symptoms. The results of the MMPI showned that

Bowman has extreme paranoid and delusional symptoms. Dr. Loomis

Vo 7

concluded that Bowman demonstrated a lack of insight and extremely

impaired judgment. Dr. Loomis testified that Bowman also had no

understanding of the degree of his symptoms or their significance.

Bowman’s total lack of insight into his symptoms and severe

impairment of reality, In Dr. Loomis’s opinion, impaired Bowman’s

judgment “to the point of nonrecognizability.”

Proceedings involving attorney competence are

designed to protect the public, maintain the integrity of the legal

profession, and safeguard the administration of justice from reproach.

Eckberg, 192 Ill. 2d at 88, 733 N.E.2d 1244, 248 Ill. Dec. 246. Such

proceedings seek to protect the interests of the public while not

unduly penalizing an attorney who suffers from a mental disorder.

See In re Bourgeois, 25 Ill. 2d 47, 51, 182 N.E.2d 651 (1962). A

proceeding under Rule 758 does not require proof of misconduct, but

instead is designed to determine whether the respondent has the

mental capacity to practice law. In re Jafree, 93 Ill. 2d 450, 457-58,

444 N.E.2d 143, 67 Ill. Dec. 104 (1982).

The Hearing Board’s finding that Bowman is mentally

incapacitated from practicing law is not contrary to the manifest

weight of the evidence. Its recommendation that Bowman be

transferred to inactive status likewise is supported by the record.

An attorney transferred to inactive status due to mental

disability may petition the Supreme Court for restoration to active

status, under Supreme Court Rule 759 (188 Ill. 2d 759), when the

disability is removed. While Dr. Loomis opined that Bowman’s lack

US 3

of insight into his condition rendered it unlikely that Bowman would

seek, and comply with, treatment, Dr. Loomis also testified that, with

proper treatment, Bowman’s prognosis would be good.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Hearing

Board’s findings of mental incapacity and its recommendation that

Respondent-Appellant, Bruce F. Bowman, be transferred to disability

inactive status until further order of the Court.

Respectfully submitted,

James E. Caldwell

Kevin M. Forde

Terrence V. O’Leary

us 4

Jated 29 January 2003

In re Bruce F. Bowman

Commission No. 01 JA 2001

Synopsis of Hearing Board Report and Recommendation

NATURE OF THE CASE: Petition to determine whether the

attorney is incapacitated from practicing law by reason of mental

infirmity and/or mental disorder, and whether he should be transferred

to non-disciplinary inactive status pending removal of disability.

RULE(S) DISCUSSED: Supreme Court Rule 758

RECOMMENDATION: Transfer to inactive status.

DATE OF OPINION: July 2002.

HEARING PANEL: John M. Steed, III, Stephen H. Pugh, and

Frances D. McConnell Williams

RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Pro se.

ADMINISTRATOR’S COUNSEL: Christine Anderson

RoA C002 ane US ID

BEFORE THE REVIEW BOARD

OF THE

ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION

AND

DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION

In the Matter of:

BRUCE F. BOWMAN,

Respondent-Appellant,

No. 01 [A 2002

CONFIDENTIAL

— SS" Gr st a”

No. 264881.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING

BOARD

INTRODUCTION

The hearing was held on January 28, 2002, at the

Chicago, Illinois offices of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary

Commission (“ARDC”) before the Panel of John M. Steed, III, Chair,

Stephen H. Pugh, and Frances D. McConnell Williams. Christine

Anderson represented the Administrator of the ARDC. Respondent

appeared pro se.

THE PETITION AND ANSWER

On May 3, 2001, the Administrator filed a petition

pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 758 to determine whether

Respondent was incapacitated from practicing law by reason of

mental infirmity and/mental disorder, and whether he should be

RoA C00IOb3 nS ye 48

transferred to non-disciplinary inactive status pending removal of the

disability. The petition alleged that on September 14, 2000,

Respondent made inappropriate comments in open court and included

those comments in a written order. In October 4, 2000, in response to

the Administrator’s inquiry, Respondent suggested that his incoming

and outgoing telephone calls had been stolen. On March 13, 2001, in

a sworn statemeni, Respondent reiterated that his telephone calls had

been stolen, and also stated that he heard voices on a daily basis and

that satellites were pointed at him. Respondent also produced

numerous letters he had written between 1998 and 2000, directed to

the United States Attorney’s Office, various telephone service

providers, numerous television personalities and others, regarding his

beliefs that his telephone calls were being stolen.

Respondent filed an answer to the petition denying

nearly all of the allegations. Respondent also filed numerous motions

objecting to the petition.

THE EVIDENCE

The Administrator presented three witnesses, called

the Respondent as an adverse witness, and tendered exhibit 1-8, 10-

29, and 31-33, which were admitted. Respondent presented one

witness, testified on his own behalf, and tendered exhibits 1-35, which

were admitted.

Dr. S. Dale Loomis

Dr. S. Dale Loomis is a licensed physician with a

specialty in psychiatry. At the Administrator’s request, Dr. Loomis

RoA Cooley AZ US 12

evaluated Respondent to determine Respondent’s ability to function

as an independent practicing professional. Before meeting with

Respondent, Dr. Loomis reviewed the petition filed by the

Administrator, and documents supplied by the Administrator and

Respondent. Dr. Loomis was also aware that in the mid-1980’s

Respondent had been hospitalized on two occasions at Mercy Mental

- Health Center in Aurora. Dr. Loomis met with Respondent on three

occasions, with each meeting lasting between one and one and one-

half hours. Respondent was appropriately dressed and on time for the

meetings, and was pleasant and cooperative. (Tr. 24, 32-35, 41).

Respondent told Dr. Loomis that his telephone calls

were being stolen or diverted, and he did not receive them. He also

believed that he was not receiving the mail he was supposed to

receive. Respondent also told Dr. Loomis that he heard voices, and

could not identify to whom the voices belonged. The voices gave

Respondent nebulous instructions or made comments about his

behavior. Respondent further told Dr. Loomis that satellites were

influencing him and that the satellites physically damaged him (Tr.

36-38).

Dr. Loomis described Respondent as “extremely

circumstantial” and “perseverative.” Circumstantial is a term used to

describe behavior in which as individual gives endless and

unnecessary detail on a particular point. Respondent gave Dr. Loomis

a large amount of information on various topics that was not relevant

or Rol ODILLE » Respondent was perseverative which means

Ro

C001 66 AY U5 1/3

it was virtually impossible to get him to stop talking about a subject.

Although Respondent was cooperative, he was focused on a topic and

could not be moved from it. As a result, usually Dr. Loomis can

complete an evaluation after one meeting, but because of

Respondent’s conduct, it took three meetings. (Tr. 38-43).

Dr. Loomis described Respondent’s behavior as

psychotic. Psychotic behavior is that which represents a tangible

break with reality. Hearing voices when no one is there is a psychotic

symptom that demonstrates a break with reality. According to Dr.

Loomis, much of what Respondent talked about was based on

“overtly delusional” periods relating to stolen telephone calls and was

completely unresponsive to any logicai approach. (Tr. 39).

Respondent took the Minnesota Multiphasic

Personality Inventory (MMPI) test. The test requires an individual to

answer a large number of true and false questions about themselves

and the answers are sent to the Mayo Clinic for analysis. The results

of Respondent’s test showed that he had extreme paranoid and

delusional symptoms. One of the questions in the MMPI asked “I

believe I am being followed.” Respondent answered “true” to this

question. Dr. Loomis admitted that neither he nor the Mayo Clinic

had any information regarding whether Respondent was actually

being followed. (Tr. 40-41, 58-60; Resp. Ex. 7).

Dr. Loomis made several significant findings.

Respondent had no central nervous system complications, his memory

was intact, and he was functioning in the average intellectual range.

RoA CO0IbEC AS US 14

Respondent also demonstrated a lack of insight and had no

understanding of the degree of his symptoms or the significance of

them. Based on this lack of insight, Respondent’s “judgment was

extremely impaired.” (Tr. 43-44).

Dr. Loomis diagnosed Respondent as having

“delusional disorder with persecutory features.” This condition

involves overt paranoid psychotic symptoms in circumscribed areas,

but with the general personality remaining in tact. Litigious behavior

is often present with this condition, and is exemplified by the number

of letters Respondent wrote about his telephone calls. (Tr. 43-46;

Adm. Exs. 1-29).

Dr. Loomis concluded that “it’s difficult for me to

think that he is currently capable of independent professional work.”

Important factors in drawing this conclusion were Respondent’s

severe impairment of reality and his total lack of insight into his

symptoms. These factors have impaired Respondent’s judgment, “to

the point of honrecognizability.” Dr. Loomis could not “imagine him

as an independent professional in any profession.” (Tr. 47-48).

Dr. Loomis opined that Respondent’s prognosis was

poor because it would be difficult to obtain the compliance necessary

for treatment. Respondent’s condition would respond weil to

treatment in the form of medication. However, doctors have had very

little success in convincing individuals with this type of condition to

undergo the treatment because the individual does not believe he has a

problem. With ion treatment, y S prognosis would be

RoA Coolt

US 15

good. (Tr. 48-49, 71-72).

Dr. Loomis is not a licensed attorney. He reviewed

legal material supplied by Respondent, but did not read it in great

detail or determine its merits. Dr. Loomis did not draw a specific

conclusion regarding Respondent’s ability to practice law. (Tr. 50-53,

61-66; Resp. Exs. 5-8).

James M. Wilson

James M. Wilson is a circuit court judge in the 16"

judicial circuit, and is currently the presiding judge of the Kendall

County courthouse. Judge Wilson presided over two cases brought

against Robert Sharpenter, a criminal proceeding involving four

counts of allowing domestic animals to run at large, and a civil

proceeding involving the impoundment of those animals. The cases

were based on incidents that occurred in March 2000, when three

animals owned by Sharpenter were found running at large. (Tr. 76).

Respondent represented Sharpenter in the criminal

case at the trial level and the civil case at the appellate level. Initially,

in the criminal matter, Sharpenter retained Leonard Wojtecki to

represent him. Wojtecki was appointed to a judicial position, and

withdrew from the case. On August 31, 2000, Respondetit was given

leave to file his appearance. While in court, Respondent told Judge

Wilson about an event that occurred in Lake Geneva earlier that day,

and included that event in the court order. In the handwritten order,

Respondent stated “Thursday 8-31-2000 Bruce F. Bowman went to

the Lake Gezieva, Wisconsin Post Office at 6:10 a.m. and used a key

RoA COOLS AT US Ib

OI Ee

to open post office box 1256, and there was no mail in post office box

1256, and there was the front of a woman’s levis [sic] on the other

side of the door of post office box 1256, Lake Geneva, Wisconsin.”

Respondent also stated in the order that he was entering his

_ appearance to “attempt to determine what occurred before Thursday

August 31, 2000 at 6:10 a.m.” When Judge Wilson signed the order,

he thought it was unusual, but was late for an appointment and did not

question it. (Tr. 76-79; Adm. Ex. 30).

Respondent filed numerous motions in the criminal

case, using arguments that applied to the civil case. For example,

Respondent challenged the notice requirement and raised the statute

of limitations, however, those arguments pertained to the civil, not the

criminal case. Additionally, Respondent did not appear to understand

the court’s rulings, and relitigated the same motions that were already

ruled on. Respondent also made unusual discovery requests for this

type of case. The charges against Sharpenter were Class C

misdemeanors. Respondent” discovery requests were typical of

requests made in felony cases. Generally, a Class C misdemeanor

case is completed in two months. Sharpenter” case took more than

six months. The trial was not lengthy, but there were numerous

motions filed by Respondent. Judge Wilson ultimately found

Sharpenter not guilty on all counts, determining that the State had not

met its burden of proof. (Tr. 79-87, 90, 93-99; Resp. Exs. 4, 25, 30).

RoA C0016 A8 USI7

Albert F. Hofeld is an attorney and the partner in the

law firm of Holfed & Schaffner. He met Respondent in the late

1970’s at the Illinois Trial Lawyers College, and subsequently saw

and spoke with Respondent from time to time. Respondent told

Hofeld that he was interested in investigating and bringing a lawsuit

involving the interruption of his activities by voices. At one point,

Respondent felt that the federal government or its agents were after

him, wanted him to do things, or were interfering with what he

wanted to do. Respondent said he had no evidence to support his

claims, and Hofeld told him that without evidence there was no basis

to go forward. (Tr. 103-105).

Sometime in the early to mid 1980’s, Hofeld met with

Respondent and hold him that part of an investigation into his claims

would require Respondent to see a psychiatrist, and if the psychiatrist

found that Respondent was not imagining his claims, a further

investigation could be undertaken. Hofeld did not think that

Respondent had a case, and wanted him to see a psychiatrist to get

help. Hofeld did not know how Respondent reacted to this

conversation, and did not speak with Respondent until 2002. (Tr.

105-108).

From time to time, Hofeld would receive letters from

Respondent regarding filing lawsuits, hearing voices, and stolen

telephone calls. In some of the letters, Respondent informed other

individuals that Hofeld was representing him. They never had an

attorney-client relationship, and Hofeld would send letters to the other

RoA C0016'70 Ag US 18

individuals correcting Respondent’s assertion. On December 26,

2001, Hofeld received two letters from Respondent in which

Respondent stated that if Hofeld attempted to telephone him, his calls

were stolen, and if he tried to mail him anything, the mail was stolen.

In January 2002, Hofeld saw Respondent, and told him that he did not

telephone or write to Respondent, and that he did not find any basis

for Respondent’s proposed lawsuit. He also told Respondent to stop

telling people that he was Respondent’s attorney. (Tr. 108-12, 116;

Adm. Exs. 14-29, 33).

Respondent

Respondent is 53 years old, was admitted to practice

law in 1973, and is a sole practitioner. Respondent’s only client is

Sharpenter, and the only court appearances Respondent made in the

1990’s was in Sharpenter case. Respondent is attempting to gather

evidence to file a lawsuit against the telephone company for stolen

telephone calls and the disconnection of his telephone in December

2001. Respondent’s law practice was limited because he was waiting

for his telephone to ring, so he could obtain evidence that his

telephone calls were being stolen. (Tr. 118-21).

Between 1997 and 1999, Respondent lived in

Tennessee, and corresponded with BellSouth, the local telephone

company. Respondent requested that BellSouth investigate the theft

of his telephone calls and other irregularities with his telephone

service. In December 1998, Patrick Turner, an attorney with

BellSouth, informed Re spondent that there was no evidence that his

RoA COLT! AO US 14

calls were being stolen, and that if Respondent still had concerns, he

should contact the appropriate law enforcement authorities. (Tr. 121-

24, Adm. Exs. 2-9).

In February 1999, in response to Turner’s letter,

Respondent applied for a position with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in

Chicago so he could prosecute stolen telephone call cases.

Respondent did not get an interview for the position, did not receive

any correspondence from the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and was not

hired for the position. He wrote several letters to the U.S. Attorney’s

Office claiming that his telephone calls and mail had been stolen. (Tr.

124; Adm. Exs. 10-15).

Beginning in September 1999, and after receiving no

response from the U.S. Attorney, Respondent wrote numerous letters

to Hofeld articulating his belief that either telephone calls and mail

from the U.S. Attorney’s Office were stolen or that the U.S. Attorney

engaged in employment discrimination. Respondent also expressed

an interest in suing the U.S. Attorney. Between January 2000, and

April 2000, Respondent sent similar letters to Hofeld, and television

journalists including Paula Zahn, Dan Rather, Ed Bradley, John

Drury, Walter Jacobson, and Dick Kay. In one of these letters,

Respondent accused the U.S. Attorney of allowing telephone calls to

be stolen and of possibly stealing the calls himself. In August and

December 2000, Respondent sent additional letters to Hofeld stating

that vay, to sue the U.S. Attorney. tee Exs. 14-17).

CO0(b72. fy) US 20

In June 2000, Respondent sent letters to the numerous

television journalists suggesting that the government causes satellites

to be focused on citizens and that this practice was responsible for

Gene Siskel’s death and Tim Wigel’s illness. Also in June 2000,

Respondent sent a letter to numerous television journalists claiming

that his telephone calls are stolen. In October 1999, Respondent sent

other letters to the journalists and Hofeld with other complaints about

a rental car and interference with one of his television stations. (Adm.

Exs. 18, 19, 20, 26).

Between January 2000 and July 2000, Respondent

sent numerous additional letters to Hofeld, television journalists, and

other individuals regarding his telephone and mail service, and

alleged misconduct of the U.S. Attorney. One of the letters

questioned the significance of two dead raccoons Respondent saw on

the side of the road when he was driving and asked “[d]o you think

two dead raccoons might be evidence of time and/or money spent to

attempt to damage Bruce F. Bowman 7” (Adm. Exs. 21, 23-29).

On August 30, 2000, Sharpenter called Respondent

and asked if Respondent would represent him in court the next

morning. Respondent was Staying in Lake Geneva, Wisconsin, and

old Sharpenter that he did not want to drive to the courthouse in

Yorkville, Illinois. The next morning, at approximately 6:15 a.m.,

Respondent went to his post office box, opened the door of his box,

ind noticed the front of a woman’s Levi’s jeans pressed up against his

0x. Respondent thought that incident was unusual, and decided to

RoA C60167F Al2 US 2)

represent Sharpenter in court. After appearing in court, Respondent

included the facts of this incident in the court order which granted

him leave to file an additional appearance.

(Tr. 125-26; Adm. Ex. 30).

Respondent admitted to hearing voices on a daily

basis. Sometimes the voices are nondescript and sometimes they ask

specific questions. For example, when Respondent sees someone, the

voices might ask him to identify the person. Respondent also stated

the voices are like someone picking through his brain to find

something to use against him. The voices have asked him specific

questions such as “if I’ve seen anyone killed or something like that,

and I haven’t seen anyone killed.” The voices do not tell Respondent

to do anything. (Tr. 127-28).

Respondent believes that satellites are focused on

citizens of the United States and of foreign countries. Respondent

also believes that he is the target of government satellites that might

follow him around at times, and take his picture. (Tr. 128-29). In late

1984 and early 1985, and in the spring of 1985, Respondent was

hospitalized at the Mercy Mental Health Center after he heard voices.

On one of those occasions, he was taken there by Aurora police

officers. During the hospitalizations, he was prescribed Haldol and

took it for a few months. He stopped taking the medication and has

taken no medication and had no treatment since that time.

(Tr. 130-31, 163).

Rot CO0IG7Y BIZ cull SAS

Robert Sharpenter

In May 2000, Sharpenter was served with a four count

criminal complaint charging that he let three domesticated animals

run at large. Civil proceedings were also instituted against him. He

initially represented himself, and a judgment was entered against him

in the civil matter. Sharpenter hired Wojtecki to represent him in the

criminal case. When Wojtecki withdrew, Sharpenter hired

Respondent. Respondent also represented Sharpenter in the appeal of

the civil case. (Tr. 138-142).

Sharpenter was extremely satisfied with Respondent’s

representation in the criminal matter and in the appeal. He has

recommended Respondent to other people, and has received

compliments about Respondent from those people (Tr. 142-47).

Respondent told Sharpenter about what he saw at his Lake Geneva

post office box. Sharpenter did not think it was particularly unusual.

He know Respondent well, and described Respondent as having an

interesting way of responding to things. Respondent has also told him

about having his telephone calls stolen, about hearing voices, and

about satellites. Sharpenter did not find Respondent’s claims unusual.

(Tr. 152-55).

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

When alleging that an attorney is incapacitated from

continuing to practice law, the Administrator must prove the

allegations in the petition by clear and convincing evidence. In re

Eckberg, 192 Ill. 2d 70, 733 N.E.2d 1244 (2000); S. Ct. R. 753(c)(6),

RoA COO1K7S AlY US 2

and 758(b). It is well-settled that “clear and convincing evidence is a

standard of proof which, while less than the criminal standard of

proof beyond a reasonable doubt, is greater than the civil standard of

preponderance of the evidence.” Cleary and Graham, Handbook of

Illinois Evidence, § 301.6 (6" ed. 1994). This standard of proof is

one in which the risk of error is not equally allocated; rather, this

standard requires a high level of proof, both qualitatively and

quantitatively, from the Administrator. Stantosky v. Kramer, 455 U.

S. 745, 764-66, 102 S.Ct. 1388 (1982); In re Tepper, 96 CH 543,

M.R. 14596 (1998) (Review Bd. Dec. at 12). Suspicious

circumstances are insufficient to warrant discipline. In re Lane, 127

Ill. 2d 90, 111 535 N.E.2d 866 (1989).

In the present case, based upon Respondent’s

admissions and the evidence presented at the hearing, we find that the

Administrator has proven by clear and convincing evidence, that the

Respondent is incapacitated from continuing to practice law by reason

of mental infirmity and/or mental disorder. Respondent has a

delusional disorder that impairs his ability to practice law and requires

treatment.

The most persuasive evidence supporting

Respondent’s incapacity is the testimony of Dr. Loomis. Dr. Loomis

interviewed Respondent on three occasions and reviewed numerous

documents supplied by Respondent and the Administrator. Dr.

Loomis found that Respondent exhibited extreme paranoid and

delusional symptoms including hearing voices and claiming that his

RoA COOILTL AIS US 2Y

telephone calls and mail are being stolen.

Dr. Loomis also found that Respondent’s behavior

was extremely circumstantial and _perseverative, meaning that

Respondent gave endless and unnecessary detail on a particular

subject and it was virtually impossible to get him to stop talking about

a subject. Respondent also demonstrated a lack of insight and had no

understanding of the degree of his symptoms or the significance of

them. Dr. Loomis concluded that Respondent’s judgment was

extremely impaired and that he was incapable of performing

independent professional work in any profession.

Dr. Loomis’s conclusions are supported by the

testimony of other witnesses and other evidence in the record.

Respondent exhibited his delusional and paranoid behavior for several

years. In the late-1970’s Respondent told Hofeld that he was

interested in bringing a lawsuit involving the interruption of his

activities by voices. Respondent also felt that the federal government

was after him and interfering with what he wanted to do. In the mid-

1980’s Respondent was hospitalized on two occasions at the Mercy

Mental Heai. ater after claiming he heard voices.

In the 1990’s Respondent made a court appearance in

only one case. He did not represent other clients because he was

gathering evidence to file a lawsuit against the telephone company for

stolen telephone calls. He spent a large portion of his time waiting for

his telephone to ring. Respondent wrote letters to his telephone

bn ( requesting an investigation. An attorney for the telephone

001677 Alb US 25

company informed Respondent that there was no evidence that his

calls were stolen and suggested that Respondent contact law

enforcement authorities.

In 1999, Respondent applied for a position with the

U.S. Attorney’s Office so he could prosecute wire fraud. In

correspondence with the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Respondent stated

that his telephone calls were being stplen. After he received no

response from the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Respondent believed that

either his telephone calls and mail from the U.S. Attorney’s Office

were being stolen, or the U.S. Attorney engaged in employment

discrimination. In 1999 and 2000, Respondent sent several letters to

Hofeld and numerous television journalists articulating his theories.

In 2000, Respondent sent additional letters to Hofeld

and television journalists suggesting that the government caused

satellites to be focused on citizens, and that this practice was

responsible for Gene Siskel’s death and Tim Wigel’s illness. Also in

2000, Respondent continued to send letters persisting with his

complaints that his telephone calls were stolen. In one of these

letters, Respondent wondered if the fact that two dead raccoons on the

side of the road were evidence of time and money spent in an attempt

to damage him.

Moreover, Respondent admitted that he heard voices

on a daily basis and that he is the target of government satellites that

follow him. Respondent —" that the voices ask him questions,

but do not ask him to do things. However, the only example of a

RoA COOIb7S ALT US 2b

question given by Respondent was whether he had seen anyone being

killed. We are concerned by the topic of this question and believe it

further support’s Dr. Loomis’s conclusion.

Respondent’s delusional behavior was exemplified in

his handling of Sharpenter’s case. Initially, Respondent declined to

represent Sharpenter in his criminal case. However, on the morning

of the court hearing, Respondent went to his post office box and saw

the front of a pair of women’s pants pressed up against his box.

Based on this incident, Respondent decided to represent Sharpenter,

and appeared in court later that day. Respondent drafted the order

giving him leave to file an appearance. In that order, Respondent

recounted the incident at his post office box, and stated that he would

investigate the incident.

According to Judge Wilson, who presided over

Sharpenter’s case, Respondent filed numerous motions in the criminal

case, raising arguments that would have been appropriate in the civil

case. Additionally, Respondent did not appear to understand the

court’s rulings and relitigated the same motions that had already been

ruled on. Consequently, the case took three times longer to resolve

than similar criminal cases. We also find that Respondent’s

propensity to raise inappropriate arguments and relitigate the same

motions that have been ruled upon was also demonstrated in this

lisciplinary action.

Respondent argues that the fact that he successfully

wa Sharpenter illustrates that he is capable of continuing to

COIL 79 aak: US 27

practice law. We do not agree. We find that many of the problems

identified by Dr. Loomis emerged during Respondent’s representation

of Sharpenter. Additionally, Respondent informed his client about

the post office box incident, that his telephone calls were being stolen,

that he heard voices and about the satellites. These statements did not

bother Sharpenter, but they were certainly irrelevant to his case and

further illustrate Respondent’s lack of judgment. We do not believe

that most other clients would have been as understanding.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on Respondent’s admissions, the evidence

presented, the testimony of Dr. Loomis, and our observations of the

Respondent, we find that Respondent is currently incapacitated from

continuing to practice law by reason of mental infirmity and/or mental

disorder, and recommend that he be transferred to disability inactive

status pending removal of the disability. Although we do not have the

authority to require a specific treatment program for Respondent, we

sincerely hope that Respondent will follow the treatment

recommended by Dr. Loomis. Dr. Loomis stated that Respondent’s

condition would respond well to medication and that his prognosis

would be good if he began treatment. Respondent’s main obstacle to

removing his disability is that he does not believe he has a problem

and lacks insight into his symptoms. According to Dr. Loomis,

Respondent’s disability will remain until the Respondent recognizes

his problem and seeks treatment for it. Therefore, we find that

Respondent should be transferred to non-disciplinary inactive status

Roh C0080 19 US 29

pending removal of his disability. See In re Belson, 93 CH 418, MLR.

9975 (1994) (attorney transferred to inactive status based on major

depression).

Although this issue was not raised by the parties,

based on independent discussions of the Panel, we find that the

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is not violated by our

decision. The Illinois Supreme Court has not addressed the impact of

the ADA on petitions brought pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 758.

However, two Review Board decisions and the decisions of the

Supreme Courts of other states have examined similar questions. The

goal of the ADA is “equality of opportunity, full participation,

independent living, and economic self-sufficiency” for a “qualified

individual with a disability.” 42 U.S.C. §1213(2). The ADA has

been described as a mandate to provide reasonable accommodations

for disabled persons so those persons can meet the essential eligibility

requirements for a job, program or activity. Id.

It is clear that the ADA applies to attorney licensing

agencies, however, it does not preclude imposing a discipline against

an attorney for misconduct or declining to admit an attorney to the

bar. Instead, the ADA bars discrimination against qualified

individuals with disabilities. See In re Clark, 97 CH 111, M.R. 17713

(2001) (Rev. Bd. Dec.). “Discipline, or even disbarment, may be

ordered if it is determined that the disability was not the scle cause of

the misconduct or that the attorney is unqualified to practice law by

reason of disability.” In re Walsh, 94 CH 653, M.R. 16705 (2000)

Roft C0169) A2o US 24

(Rev. Bd. Dec.). In other words, the ADA does not protect attorneys

whose disabilities prevent them from meeting the essential

requirements of the profession.

In one case, an attorney with bipolar disorder argued

ihat to disbar him would violate the ADA. The court stated that a

“person is a ‘qualified’ individual with a disability with respect to

licensing if he or she, with or without reasonable accommodations,

‘meets the essential requirements’ for receiving his license.” Florida

Bar v. Clement, 662 So.2d 690(1995), quoting Stillwell v. Kansas

City Bd. Of Police Comm’rs, 872 f. Supp. 682 (W.D. Mo 1995). The

court further expalinged that this determination requires a case-by-

case analysis of the disabled person and the job he seeks. In that case,

the court found that Clement was not qualified to be an attorney

because he committed serious misconduct, and not reasonable

accommodation would make him qualified.

Similarly, the Supreme Courts I other states have found that

the ADA did not preclude the imposition of discipline against

attorneys. See In re Milloy, 571 N.E. 2d 39 (1997) (Minnesota

Supreme Court relating to an attorney with Attention Deficit

Disorder): People _v. Reynolds, 993 P.2d 1295 (1997) Colorado

Supreme Court relating to an attorney who suffered from depression);

State ex res. Oklahoma Bar Assoc, v. Busch, 919 P.2d 1113 (1996)

(Oklahoma Supreme Court relating to an attorney with Attention

Deficit Disorder).

Applying the reasoning of these cases to the present case

Roh Coolb82 = AZ US 30

supports the conclusion that finding Respondent incapable of

practicing law would not violate the ADA. Respondent is currently

incapacitated from practicing law by reason of mental infirmity and/or

mental disorder. The expert testimony, which is supported by other

evidence, establishes that Respondent’s judgment is severely impaired

and that the is unable to practice law. There is no evidence that he

could continue to practice law with any reasonable accommodation,

and therefore, the ADA is not violated.

Dated: July 18, 2002 /s/ John M. Steed. I

John M. Steed, III Chair of

The Hearing Panel, Stephen

H. Pugh, and Frances D.

McConnell, Hearing Panel

Members

RoA C00/694 A222 US3/

0264881

No. MR 18666

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

In the matter of: )

BRUCE F. BOWMAN, ‘

MR 18666

lilinois Supreme Court No.

)

Attorney-Respondent-Appellant, | ) Commission No. 01 IA 2001

)

No. 264881 )

6-11-2003 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

MOTION FOR REHE G

2-21-2003 PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE EXCEPTIONS

RULE 758 MENTAL INFIRMITY OR MENTAL DISORDER

Now comes Attorney-Respondent-Appellant, BRUCE F. BOWMAN,

and for his Motion for leave to File Motion for Rehearing on the 2-21-

2003 Petition for Leave to File Exceptions states:

1. That 2-21-2003 Attorney-Respondent-Appellant BRUCE

F. BOWMAN filed in the Supreme Court of Illinois:

PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE EXCEPTIONS

1-29-2003 REVIEW BOARD REPORT FILED

1-10-2003 REVIEW BOARD ORAL ARGUMENTS

7-18-2002 HEARING-BOARD REPORT FILED

1-28-2002 HEARING-BOARD HEARING AND

TRANSCRIPT

and that 2-21-2003 Illinois Supreme Court Petition for Leave to File

Exceptions was denied 5-22-2003 by the Supreme Court of Illinois.

US32

2. Prohibition against vague regulations of speech is based in

part on need to eliminate impermissible risk of

discriminatory enforcement. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 1,

GENTILE v. STATE BAR OF NEVADA, 501 U.S. 1030,

115 L. Ed. 2d 888, 111 S. Ct. 2720, (1991).

3. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 758 fails to allege a rule for

violation, such as “thou shall not advertise”, or “thou shall

not solicit clients, or as in GENTILE v. STATE BAR OF

NEVADA, supra, “thou shall not talk to the news media”,

Rule 758 is a procedural rule, unconstitutionally vague,

and violates Same Due Process of Law, and Equal

protection of Law, United States Constitution Fourteenth

Amendment, and violates United States Constitution First

Amendment Freedom of Speech, and states:

“RULE 758 Mental Disability or Addiction to Drugs

or Intoxicants

(a) Petition. If the Inquiry Board has reason to

believe that an attorney admitted to practice

in this State is incapacitated from

continuing to practice law by reason of

mental infirmity, mental disorder, or

addiction to drugs or intoxicants, the

Administrator shall file a petition with the

Hearing Board requesting a hearing to

determine whether the attorney is

incapacitated and should be transferred to

disability inactive status pending the

removal of the disability, or be permitted to

continue to practice law subject to

conditions imposed by the court.

(b) Hearing and Review Procedure. The

hearing and review procedure shall be the

same as provided in Rule 753 for

disciplinary cases. The Administrator and

US 33

the attorney may consent to transfer to

disability inactive status under the

procedure set forth in Rule 762 (a).

(c) Transfer to Disability Inactive Status. If

the court determines that the attorney is

incapacitated from continuing to practice

law, the court shall enter an order

transferring the attorney to disability

inactive status until further order of the

court. The court may impose reasonable

conditions upon an attorney’s continued

practice of law warranted by the

circumstances.

(d) Stay of Disciplinary Proceedings.

Disciplinary proceedings pending against

an attorney shall be stayed while the

attorney is on disability inactive status.

(e) Practice of Law Prohibited. No attorney

transferred to disability inactive status may

engage in the practice of law until restored

to active status by order of the court.

(Amended effective Nov. 1, 1990, amended

June 29, 1999, effective Nov. 1, 1999.)

4. At the time of the filing of the Petition by the

Administrator, MARY ROBINSON, there were no

disciplinary proceedings pending against Attorney-

Respondent-Appellant BRUCE F. BOWMAN.

5. The Petition filed by Administrator MARY ROBINSON

fails to allege a rule for violation, and fails to allege facts

constituting violation of a rule for violation.

6. The Petition filed by Administrator MARY ROBINSON

fails to allege a rule for violation, and fails to allege a

factual basis for violation ofa rule for violation, and

therefore fails to sufficiently allege a claim or cause of

action, and should have been dismissed. GRAY v.

PLANO 141 Ill. App. 3d 575, (1986). US 3Y

10.

11.

12.

13.

Rule of liberal construction of pleadings does not relieve

plaintiff from duty of alleging nonconclusory factual

allegations in complaint to reasonably inform defendant of

elements necessary to state a cause of action. Gray v.

Plano, 141 Ill. App. 3d 575 (1986).

Vague laws that may be a trap for the unwary are

disfavored, particularly when the statute at issue abuts on

Sensitive areas of basic First Amendment freedoms and

may inhibit the exercise of those freedoms. U.S.C.A.

Const. Amend. 1., Dehne v. Avanino 219 F. Supp. 2d 1096

(D. Nev. 2001).

Statute or regulation is void for vagueness if it either

forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague

that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at

its meaning and differ as to its application. VIA v.

TAYLOR 222 F. Supp. 2d 753 (D. Del. 2002).

Main purpose of the void for vagueness doctrine is to

ensure fair and non-discriminatory application of the law;

thus the void for vagueness doctrine finds repulsive laws

that endow officials with undue discretion to determine

whether a given activity contravenes the law’s mandates.

VIA v. TAYLOR 222 F. Supp. 2d 753

(D. Del. 2002).

Unconstitutionally vague law impermissibly delegates

basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for

resolution on an ed hoc and subjective basis, with the

attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory

application. VIA v. TAYLOR 224 F. Supp. 2d 753 (D.

Del. 2002).

To ascertain whether statutory language is clear or

ambiguous, courts look to the language of the statute itself

the specific context in which the language is used, and the

broader context of the statute as a whole. Trigon Ins. Co.

v. U.S., 215 F. Supp. 2d 687. (Va. 2002).

Attorney-Respondent-Appellant BRUCE F. BOWMAN

raised the issue of the sufficiency of the Administrator’ s

Petition, and the failure to allege a rule for violation, and

V> 3$

14.

15.

16.

the failure to allege facts showing violation of a rule for

violation. A Motion to Dismiss the Petition of

Administrator MARY ROBINSON was filed with the

Hearing Board, and with the Supreme Court of Illinois.

There were also statements concerning failure to allege (1)

A rule for violation, as “thou shall not. . .”, and (2) failure

to allege facts constituting violation of a rule for violation.

Those statements might be found in the Hearing Board

Transcript, and Exceptions to Hearing Board Report, and

Review Board Oral Arguments, and Exceptions to Review

Board Report.

The Petition of Administrator MARY ROBINSON fails to

allege anything in the work of BRUCE F.BOWMAN, or

any representation by BRUCE F. BOWMAN, in Court, or

Before the Hearing Board, or Before the Review Board,

that is either:

(a) Unethical

(b) Insufficient

(c) Materially Improper

(d) Incomplete.

The Petition of Administrator MARY ROBINSON also

fails to allege proximate cause.

BRUCE F.BOWMAN has raised the issue of Statistical

Evidence of Discrimination. The 2000 Annual Report of

the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of

the Supreme Court of Illinois shows at pages 8, 14, and 15,

RoA 446-447, Appendix pages A65, A66

Year 2000 Number of Registered Attorneys in Illinois

73,661

Year 2000 New cases filed Petitions Alleging Impairment

Rule 758

2 NEW CASES FILED IN THE YEAR 2000

Year 2000 Rules 757 and 758

Petitions for involuntary transfer to inactive

— US 4é

Due to mental disability or substance addiction

Allowed 2

Denied 1

TOTAL 3

There is statistical evidence of discrimination, considering

the year 2000 number of registered attorneys in Illinois,

73,661, and the number of new cases filed 2, and the

number of Petitions alleging mental disability or

substance addiction considered 3.

17. Rule 758 concerning mental disability fails to allege (1) a

Rule for Violation and fails to set forth criteria for (2) facts

constituting violation of a rule for violation, and is

arbitrary and can be discriminatory, and should be

considered void.

18. May 3, 2001 Administrator MARY ROBINSON filed

against BRUCE F. BOWMAN “PETITION PURSUANT

TO SUPREME COURT RULE 758” that fails to allege

rule violation, and fails to allege facts constituting

violation of a rule for violation, and fails to allege

proximate cause. Paragraph 2 of that Petition refers to an

order “. . . prepared by Respondent on August 31, 2000. .

.” and fails to say what is materially improper about that

order, and that order is protected by freedom of speech and

attorney-client privilege. There is a recent Federal

Appeals Court, San Francisco, California freedom of

speech case, a physician writing a prescription for

marijuana is protected by freedom of speech. USA

TODAY Wednesday, October 30, 2002, Section A, Page

3A.

19. Administrator MARY ROBINSON’S Petition Pursuant to

Rule 758 refers to the belief’s of BRUCE F . BOWMAN,

and BRUCE F. BOWMAN believes, and believes there is

evidence: tae 4 7

(1) — Telephone calls are sometimes stolen

(2) There are voices over the airwaves

(3) Satellites are focused on and/or used on United

States citizens.

The beliefs of Attorney-Respondent-Appellant BRUCE F.

BOWMAN are protected by freedom of speech. United

States Constitution, First Amendment, and In Re

EDNA SMITH PRIMUS, 436 US 412, 56 L Ed 2d 417, 98

S Ct 1983 (1978).

20. In the case of In Re EDNA SMITH PRIMUS, supra, there

was:

(1) A rule for violation, thou shall not solicit

clients

(2) Alleged violation of a rule for violation EDNA

SMITH PRIMUS spoke and wrote and was

alleged to violate the rule against soliciting

clients

(3) | The United States Supreme Court said,

Protected by Freedom of Speech

In the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary

Commission case against BRUCE F. BOWMAN, there is

(1) Failure to allege a rule for violation, as thou

shall not...

(2) Failure to allege violation of a rule for

violation.

(3) BRUCE F. BOWMAN’S beliefs are protected

by freedom of speech, In Re EDNA SMITH

PRIMUS, supra, and Uni itution

First Amendment.

21. As far as BRUCE F. BOWMAN'S belief that telephone

calls are sometimes stolen is concerned there is evidence of

telephone calls to AMERITECH by unidentified

US 39

suspects to disconnect the telephone of BRUCE F.

BOWMAN.

1-28-2002 Hearing Administrator Exhibit After 33, not

marked, in position of Admin. Ex 34, A 529-532, and refer to

1-28-2002 Hearing Board Actual Transcript page 119.

BRUCE F. BOWMAN wrote letters concerning telephone

calls and facts, and denies being delusional or paranoid.

As a result of unidentified suspects telephone calls, BRUCE F.

BOWMAN’S Aurora, Illinois telephone number (630) 844-

1741 was disconnected and/or put on vacation service 12-6-

2001.

BRUCE F. BOWMAN denies being delusional or paranoid.

A 529-532.

Unidentified suspects from unidentified locations telephoned

AMERITECH November 29, 2001 and December 3, 2001

and December 4, 2001 to disconnect and/or put on vacation

service BRUCE F. BOWMAN’S Aurora, Illinois telephone

number (630) 844-1741 beginning at midnight December 6,

2001.

22. As far as BRUCE F. BOWMAN’S belief that there are voices

over the airwaves, and the belief there is evidence there are

voices over the air waves is concerned, Paragraph 4 of

Administrator MARY ROBINSON’S Rule 758 Petition also

States in part in paragraph 4,

“. In 1985, Respondent reported these voices to the Aurora

Police Department and was involuntarily committed to a

mental health facility. . . .”

Palm Sunday 1985 BRUCE F. BOWMAN complained to the

Aurora Police Department of voices over the air waves, and

US 39

ee

was involuntarily put in a mental hospital, and released a few

days later, the following Thursday, and was in church with his

parents Easter Sunday.

The reference in Administrator MARY ROBINSON’S Rule

758 Petition to 1985 voices over the airwaves is not relevant,

and also is not relevant because of time in this case.

In December 1984 BRUCE F. BOWMAN complained of

voices over the airwaves and was put in a mental hospital for a

few days, including NEW YEARS EVE 1985, that is not

relevant, and not relevant because of time in this case.

In 1984 and 1985 Attorney-Respondent-Appellant BRUCE F.

BOWMAN represented plaintiff DEBORAH LEMKE in the

case of LEMKE v. KENILWORTH INSURANCE

COMPANY. That case, LEMKE v. KENILWORTH

INSURANCE COMPANY is a 1985 Illinois Supreme Court

case, 109 Ill. 2d 350 (1985).

In the years 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003, Attorney-

Respondent-Appellant BRUCE F. BOWMAN represented

defendant ROBERT J. SHARPENTER in the Kendall County,

Illinois case PEOPLE v. ROBERT J. SHARPENTER

Defendant ROBERT J. SHARPENTER was found 1-3-2001,

NOT GUILTY on all 4 counts. A preliminary 6-5-2000 order

entered when defendant ROBERT J. SHARPENTER

represented himself, was appealed by Attorney-Respondent

BRUCE F. BOWMAN to the Appellate Court, and Illinois

Supreme Court, and a Petition for Writ of Certiorari was filed

by BRUCE F. BOWMAN in the Supreme Court of the United

States, No. 02-1455, and a Petition for Rehearing (Rule 44)

was also filed by mailing 6-3-2003, in the Supreme Court of

the United States. -

US. 40

Administrator MARY ROBINSON questioned the ability of

BRUCE F. BOWMAN to practice law and filed 5-3-2001 a

‘PETITION PURSUANT TO SUPREME COURT RULE

758”, ‘... that requests a hearing be held to determine

whether Respondent Bruce F. Bowman, is incapacitated from

practicing law by reason of mental infirmity and/or mental

disorder and whether he should be transferred to disability

inactive status pending removal of the disability...”

Administrator MARY ROBINSON filed 5-4-2001 with the

Clerk of the Jllinois Supreme Court a ‘MOTION TO ORDER

A MENTAL EXAMINATION OF RESPONDENT

PURSUANT TO SUPREME COURT RULE 760”

An Order for Mental Examination was entered 5-11-2001, and

apparently held and restamped filed 6-29-2001, the day

BRUCE F. BOWMAN filed a Replay Brief in the Appellate

Court of Defendant ROBERT J. SHARPENTER.

That Petition and Motion of Administrator MARY

ROBINSON questioning the ability of BRUCE F. BOWMAN

to practice law has now become this Illinois Supreme Court

case, Commission No. 01 IA 2001, and Supreme Court of

Illinois number MR 18666.

Some attorneys have not tried a case representing a defendant

found NOT GUILTY on all four counts.

Some attorneys have not appealed a case to the Appellate

Court of Illinois, or to the Supreme Court of IIlinois.

Some attorneys have not filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari

in the Supreme Court of the United States, or a Petition for

Rehearing in the Supreme Court of the United States.

US 4]

23. Satellites might be focused on and/or used on United States

Citizens.

BRUCE F. BOWMAN’S 6-25-2000 letter used at the 1-28-

2002 Hearing Board as Administrator Exhibit 26 refers to

newspaper articles, Chicago Tribune Sunday 6-25-2000,

section 5, page 2, and also Chicago Sun Times, 6-25-2002

page 26A.

The facts include WBBM CBS Television Chicago, Illinois

now deceased employees GENE SISKEL and TIM

WEIGEL were roommates at Yale University; both had

brain cancer, both had brain surgery, and now both are dead.

The Sunday June 25, 2000 Chicago Sun Times page 26A

article concerning the brains of Tim Weigel and Gene Siskel

states:

“While doctors stress it is coincidence, three people who

worked in the CBS building in Chicago, Siskel, Weigel, and

Larry Dieckhaus, a former executive producer—developed

brain tumors within a few years.”

Television and newspaper journalists should have freedom

of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of association.

BRUCE F. BOWMAN should have freedom of speech,

freedom of the press, and freedom of association, and be

able to comment on newspaper articles.

There might be evidence that satellites are focused on and/or

used on United States citizens.

24. Administrator MARY ROBINSON’S 5-4-2001 “MOTION

TO ORDER A MENTAL EXAMINATION OF

RESPONDENT PURSUANT TO SUPREME COURT

RULE 760” consists of 3 paragraphs: Page

US 42

25.

“1. On May 3, 2001, the Administrator filed a petition with

the Hearing Board of the Commission in In Re Bruce F.

Bowman, 01 IA 2001. The Petition alleges that Respondent

is incapacitated and should be transferred to inactive status

as a result of his mental condition.

2. The Petition sets forth a variety of events which reflect

upon Respondent’s mental condition, including his filing of

court documents containing inappropriate statements, his

belief that his telephone calls are stolen and his claim of

hearing voices over the airwaves on a daily basis. A copy of

the Petition is attached as Exhibit One.

3. In order for this court and the Hearing Board to

adequately assess Respondent’s mental fitness, an

examination conducted by a qualified physician is

necessary.”

Both the Administrator MARY ROBINSON’S Motion for

a Mental Examination and Petition to Determine Whether

BRUCE F. BOWMAN is Incapacitated From Practicing

Law, FAIL TO:

(1) Allege a Rule for Violation

(2) Allege facts constitution Violation of a rule for

Violation

(3) Consist of conclusions and opinions of the

Administrator

(4) Is vague

(5) Fail to allege any representation by BRUCE F.

BOWMAN in Court, or before the Hearing Board,

that is either:

(a) Unethical

(b) Insufficient

(c) §Materially Improper

d Incomplete

26. There is no evidence of any of the following showing

proximate cause, or causal connection:

27.

28.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

date, time, and place any such belief affected the

representation of ROBERT J. SHARPENTER

HOW ANY BELIEF affected the representation of

ROBERT J. SHARPENTER

Considering Defendant ROBERT J. SHARPENTER

was found NOT GUILTY on all 4 counts, what

adverse effect any belief had on the representation of

Defendant ROBERT J. SHARPENTER

Any causal connection between BRUCE F.

BOWMAN’S beliefs and the representation of

Defendant ROBERT J. SHARPNTER, and the

Motion for Mental Examinatia of BRUCE F.

BOWMAN

Any Causal connection between BRUCE F.

BOWMAN’S beliefs and the representation of

Defendant ROBERT J. SHARPENTER and the

Petition to Determine whether BRUCE F. BOWMAN

is incapacitated from practicing law.

Administrator MARY ROBINSON failed to allege

proximate cause, and there is no evidence of proximate

cause concerning the beliefs of BRUCE F. BOWMAN,

and the work of BRUCE F. BOWMAN representing

Defendant ROBERT J. SHARPENTER.

Administrator MARY ROBINSON failed to allege

proximate cause or causal connection concerning the

beliefs of BRUCE F. BOWMAN, and any effect on the

work of BRUCE F. BOWMAN, and any causal

connection or to either the Rule 760 Motion for Mental

Examination or the Rule 758 Petition to determine

whether BRUCE F. BOWMAN is incapacitated from

practicing law by reason of mental infirmity and/or

mental disorder, and whether he should be transferred to

US 4Y

29.

30.

31.

disability inactive status pending removal of the

disability.

Attorney-Respondent-Appellant BRUCE F. BOWMAN

represented the mother, JANET ROBERTS FOxX< in the

trial court in DeKalb County, Illinois and in the Illinois

Appellate Court case, In Re Dawn Marie Roberts 107 II.

App 3d 913, 918, (1982), and the trial count found no

proximate cause and the Illinois Appellate Court stated at

page 918:

“The trial judge found that no evidence had been

adduced of any use of marijuana that impaired the

mother’s care of the child....”

Although the grandmother made statements concerning

the use of marijuana, there was no proximate cause, no

evidence of use of marijuana, that impaired the mother’s

care of the child.

BRUCE F. BOWMAN thinks BRUCE F. BOWMAN did

a good job at the Hearing Board cross-examining a

psychiatrist, DR. S. DALE LOOMIS. Some lawyers

have cross-examined a physician. Not many lawyers

have cross-examined a psychiatrist.

At the 1-28-2002 ARDC Hearing Board Hearing,

Attorney-Respondent BRUCE F. BOWMAN cross-

examined DR. S. DALE LOOMIS, beginning at Report

of Proceedings 114 and continuing through page 136,

RoA 114-136, A 152-174. The Report of Proceedings

Volume contains telephone interrogation transcripts. The

Actual 1-28-2002 Hearing Board Transcript showing

cross-examination of Dr. S. DALE LOOMIS by BRUCE

F. BOWMAN begins on 1-28-2002 at page 50.

ws

3a.

33.

34.

Some of BRUCE F. BOWMAN’S 1-28-2002 Hearing

Board cross-examination of Dr. 8. DALE LOOMIS is

shown in the Illinois Supreme Court Petition for Leave to

File Exceptions, pages 27-31.

The Hearing Board should not have allowed Dr. S. DALE

LOOMIS to testify. Dr. S. DALE LOOMIS was not ona

list of witnesses filed within 28 days, contrary to and in

violation of RULE 253 that provides in part:

“Within 28 days of service of the complaint on the

respondent, the Administrator and the attorney-

respondent shall file a report disclosing the name, address

and telephone numbers of all persons who have

knowledge of the facts which are the subject of the

proceeding...

The Hearing Board shall not allow the Administrator

or the attorney-respondent to offer the testimony of

any person, the identity and location of whom the

Administrator or attorney-respondent failed to disclose

pursuant to this rule.”

The Hearing Board Should not have allowed Dr. S. DALE

LOOMIS to testify, considering DOLAN v. GALLUZZO

77 Ill 2d 279, 285,396 N. E. 2d (1979)

A good case concerning a physician attempting to testify

against the work of another physician is DOLAN v.

GALLUZZO, supra THAT STATES AT PAGE 285:

“We therefore hold that in order to testify as an expert on

the standard of care in a given school of medicine, the

witness must be licensed therein. Once the fact of license

is established, it lies within the sole discretion of the trial

court to determine if the witness is qualified to testify as

US 46

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

an expert regarding the standard of care” DOLAN v.

GALLUZZO, 77 Ill 2d279, 285 396N.E. 2d 13 (1979).

Dr. S. DALE LOOMIS is not licensed to practice law.

Dr. S. DALE LOOMIS is not qualified to judge the work

of an attorney.

Dr. S. DALE LOOMIS gave Attorney BRUCE F.

BOWMAN the MMPI-2 test, a true false test, with -

questions like:

At times I feel like swearing.

I seldom worry about my health.

I enjoy detective or mystery stories.

BRUCE F. BOWMAN does not think the MMPI-2 test is

sufficient to determine:

(1) The ability of BRUCE F. BOWMAN to practice law

(2) If BRUCE F. BOWMAN suffers from mental

disability or mental disorder.

(3) Proximate cause of any effect on the ability of

BRUCE F. BOWMAN to practice law.

BRUCE F. BOWMAN does not think the MMPI-2 test

shows any factual evidence that BRUCE F. BOWMAN

might be or is incapacitated from practicing law, and

BRUCE F. BOWMAN denies being incapacitated

because of mental infirmity or mental disorder

Although CHRISTINE P. ANDERSON questioned Dr. S.

DALE LOOMIS about the MMPI-2 test given BRUCE F.

BOWMAN, apparently CHRISTINE P. ANDERSON

never received a copy of the test before BRUCE F.

BOWMAN’S cross-examination of Dr. S. DALE

US Y7]

40.

41.

42.

43.

LOOMIS at the 1-28-2002 Hearing. CHRISTINE P.

ANDERSON objected to Respondent BRUCE F.

BOWMAN’S Exhibit 7, the MMPI-2 test. Refer

to 1-28-2002 transcript page 58, RoA 122, A 192.

ADMINISTRATOR’S ANSWER TO RESPONDENT’S

PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE EXCEPTIONS states

at page 8, “Because it was difficult to get information

from Respondent, Dr. Loomis had three appointments

with him, rather than the single appointment he usually

has ““‘for an ARDC consultation.” R.107”

Dr. S. Dale Loomis is not licensed to practice law, and it

is hard to imagine him being able to judge the ability of

someone to practice law ina one hour appointment, or in

three one and one half hour appointments.

Page 7 of ADMINISTRATOR’S ANSWER TO

RESPONDENT’S PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

EXCEPTIONS states, “ “Dr. Loomis met with respondent

on three occasions, for an hour or an hour and one half

each time. R.99 Respondent also completed a self-

administered psychological test, the Minnesota

Multiphasic Personality Inventory, R99”

As previously stated, the MMPI-2 test, or Minnesota -

Multiphasic Personality Inventory, is a true or false test,

with true or false questions like:

At times I feel like swearing.

I seldom worry about my health.

I enjoy detective or mystery stories.

The MMPI-2 test should not be considered an accurate

measure of the ability of someone to practice law.

US 45

44. BRUCE F. BOWMAN thinks a good case concerning a

physician testifying against the work of another is

DOLAN V. GALLUZZO 77 Ill 2d 179, 285, 396 N.E.

2d 13 (1977).

If a physician is going to testify against the work of

another physician, the testifying physician must be a

licensed physician.

If a physician is going to testify against the work of a

specialist physician, the testifying physician must be

licensed physician, and further qualified.

Dr. S. Dale Loomis is not licensed to practice law and

should not have been allowed to testify concerning the

ability of Attorney-Respondent BRUCE F. BOWMAN to

practice law.

Dr. S. DALE LOOMIS is not qualified to judge the work

of an attorney.

45. BRUCE F. BOWMAN thinks BRUCE F. BOWMAN did

a good job cross examining a psychiatrist, Dr. S. DALE

LOOMIS, at the 1-28-1002 Hearing Board

Hearing.

46. Attorney-Respondent BRUCE F. BOWMAN delivered

information concerning BRUCE F. BOWMAN, and

filings and writings to the office building of Dr. S.

DALE LOOMIS, and used some of that information at the

1-28-2002 ARDC

Hearing.

47. Attorney-Respondent BRUCE F. BOWMAN 1-28-2002

Hearing Board Exhibits included:

US 49

Resp. Ex5 9-5-2001

Resp. Ex6 9-19-2001

Loomis Examination

Material

Loomis Examination

Material

48. Attorney-Respondent BRUCE F. BOWMAN preserved,

and used at the 1-28-2002 Hearing Board Hearing

Resp. Ex 7 9-5-2001

Loomis Test, and that is

the true or false MMPI-2

Minnesota Multiphasic

Personality Inventory.

A 360-A411 of the

Hearing Board

Supplemental

Appendix.

49. Attorney-Respondent BRUCE F. BOWMAN took the

time to include several pages of 1-28-2002 ARDC

Hearing cross examination of Dr. S. DALE LOOMIS in

t..e 9-13-2002 Brief and Argument of BRUCE F.

BOWMAN filed 9-13-2002. The 1-28-2002 Hearing

Transcript cross examination of Dr. S. DALE LOOMIS,

begins on page 50 and continues through 72. The ARDC

Report of Proceedings Volume pages are 114-126 and 9-

13-2002 Brief and Argument Appendix pages

A152-A174.

50. Dr. S. DALE LOOMIS did not recognize a motion to

dismiss the proceeding at which he was testifying.

51. Dr. S. DALE LOOMIS did not recognize Illinois

Appellate Court decisions, and was shown both a

published Appellate Court opinion, and a Rule 23

Appellate Court opinion.

US 50

7

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

Dr. S. DALE LOOMIS gives the MMPI-2 test to

essentially all new patients. The MMPI-2 test does not

measure the ability of non-lawyers to practice law. The

MMPI-2 test does not measure the ability of BRUCE F.

BOWMAN to practice law.

There is essentially no factual basis for Dr. S. DALE

LOOMIS ‘o testify that BRUCE F. BOWMAN is

incapacitated from practicing law.

BRUCE F. BOWMAN focused the Argument of the

Appellant Brief filed 9-13-2002 on the testimony of Dr.

S. DALE LOOMIS, read pages 20-28, of that brief.

BRUCE F. BOWMAN took the time to write more than

one page concerning the testimony of Dr. S. DALE

LOOMIS in 12-6-2002 Appellant Reply Brief, read

pages 18-19.

There is nothing in the testimony of any witness,

- including DR. S. DALE LOOMIS, that any of the work

of Attorney-Respondent BRUCE F. BOWMAN was:

(1) unethical

(2) insufficient

(3) materially improper

(4) incomplete.

The cases cited by the administrator involve (1)

wrongdoing, like Hessberger killed his wife, and was

found not guilty by reason of insanity, and (2) a mental

allegation, In Re Hessberger 96 II 2d 423, 451 NE 2d

821 (1983).

There is nothing in the testimony of any witness,

including the testimony of DR. S. DALE LOOMIS

concerning the actual work of BRUCE F. BOWMAN

being a material violation of any rule.

US 5]

59. There is evidence that Administrator MARY ROBINSON

and her attorneys CHRISTINE P. ANDERSON and

JULIA MARK violated 3 published Supreme Court

Rules:

(1) Rule 253 File a List of Witnesses within 28 days

(2) Rule 260 Initial Prehearing Conference at the

Office of the Attorney Registration and

Disciplinary Commission with Respondent

Present.

(3) Rule 276 each party must appear at the hearing and

testify. MARY ROBINSON was not at the

hearing and did not testify. CHRISTINE P.

ANDERSON was at the hearing and did not want

to testify. LEONARD WOJTECKI wrote the

letter to the Attorney Registration and

Disciplinary Commission, and was not at the

hearing and did not testify.

60. Attorney-Respondent BRUCE F. BOWMAN has

represented ROBERT J. SHARPENTER in the trial court,

Illinois Appellate Court, Supreme Court of Illinois,

and recently in the Supreme Court of the United States.

The actual 1-28-2002 Hearing Board Transcript states at

page 146, and continuing on page 147,

By MR. BOWMAN: Were you satisfied with the motions

that I filed for you in Kendall County?

MR. SHARPENTER: I have been satisfied with every

motion that you have ever filed for me in any case where

you represented me, and Kendall County was certainly no

different in that , so I would say extremely satisfied and

US 52

confident and trusting.

61.

62.

63.

65.

Later at page 147

MS. ANDERSON (ARDC Attorney) Objection. He’s

already testified about his satisfaction. I don’t think he

needs...

CHAIRMAN STEED: | agree it’s been asked and

answered, ir. Bowman ‘{e’s gone through how satisfied

he is with you.

MR. BOWMAN: I have no further questions.

The woman in the Lake Geneva, Wisconsin post office

referred to in the 8-31-2000 court order might be able to

be identified.

The person and or persons that telephoned Ameritech

11-20-2001, 12-3-2001, and 12-4-2001, to disconnect

BRUCE F. BOWMAN’S Aurora, Illinois telephone

number (630) 844-1741, might be able to be identified.

Was the Order for Mental Examination entered 5-1 1-

2001 held and then restamped filed 6-20-2001 the day

BRUCE F. BOWMAN filed a Reply Brief into the

Appellate Court for Defendant ROBERT J.

SHARPENTER? Who held that Order for Mental

Examination, and for what reason?

Were all the Hearing Board Members licensed to practice

law? What is the identity of people who wrote the

Hearing Board report? The ARDC has failed to answer

questions.

I think I made a good oral argument at the Review Board

of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary

Commission 1-10-2003. I paid to have the tape

transcribed. I was told I needed a motion to file the

transcript. The Attorney Registration and Disciplinary

Commission objected to the 1-10-2003 Review Board

is 55

66.

Oral Argument Transcript being filed. Read the 1-10-

2003 Review Board Oral Argument Transcript.

Read the 1-28-2002 Hearing Board Transcript cross

examination testimony of Dr. S. Dale Loomis, cross

examination by BRUCE F. BOWMAN, 1-28-2002 actual

transcript pages 50-72, Report of Proceedings pages 114

through 126, RoA 114-136, A152-174.

1-18-2002 Hearing Board cross examination testimony of

Dr. S. Dale Loomis includes cross examination by

BRUCE F. BOWMAN as shown at pages 53-54.

MR. BOWMAN:

Q. A document filed July 17, 2001 motion pursuant to

Rule 235 to strike and dismiss petition pursuant to

Rule 758, do you remember if you read that

document.

DR. LOOMIS:

A. No.

Q. Do you have any idea what that document concerns?

A. Very little.

Q. IfI told you that document concerns the hearing at

which you are testifying today, would that make any

sense to you?

A. Could be interesting, but I don’t know the relevance

of it?

MR. BOWMAN

Q. Well this is an Illinois Supreme Court Rule 758

hearing. DS 5H

DR. LOOMIS

A. But that, of course, means nothing to me.

WHEREFORE Attorney-Respondent-Appellant BRUCE F.

BOWMAN asks:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

That this MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

MOTION FOR REHEARING ON 2-21-2003

PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

EXCEPTIONS be granted.

That the Hearing on 2-21-2003 PETITION

FOR LEAVE TO FILE EXCEPTIONS be

filed.

That this case be set for Illinois Supreme Court

Oral Arguments. I would think you would

want to see what I look like and sound like in

Court before determination that I am

supposedly incapacitated from practicing

law by reason of mental infirmity or mental

disorder.

That RULE 758 Mental Disability be declared

unconstitutional. RULE 758 is a procedural

rule that fails to allege a rule for violation, and

is therefore vague, and makes discriminatory

enforcement possible, and violates Due Process

of Law and violates Equal Protection of Law,

United States Constitution Fourteenth

Amendment, and also violates Freedom of

Speech, United States Constitution First

Amendment.

For such other and further relief as equity may

require. US 5 a

Respectfully Submitted,

BRUCE F. BOWMAN, 0264881

1741 West Galena Blvd.

Aurora, Illinois 60506

Telephone (630) 844-1741

Wisconsin Telephone and

Ameritech Voice Mail (262) 248-1539

us 46

(Seal)

SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS

SUPREME COURT BUILDING

SPRINGFIELD 62702

Juleann Honyak First District Office

Clerk of the Court June 29, 2001 20" Floor

217-782-2035 160 No. LaSalle St.

Chicago 60601

312-793-1332

Telecommunications Device Telecommunications

For the Deaf For the Deaf

(312) 524-8132 (312) 793-1333

Ms. Julie A. Mark

Attorney Registration and

Disciplinary Commission

One Prudential Plaza, S# 1500

130 E. Randolph Drive

Chicago, IL 60601

In re: Bruce F. Bowman. M. R. 17534

Dear Ms. Mark:

Enclosed please find a certified copy of an order entered today by the

Supreme Court of Illinois in the above entitled cause.

Very truly yours,

/s/ Juleann Hornyak

Clerk of the Supreme Court

JH/cjb

Enclosure

ce: Bruce F. Bowman

Joseph A Schillaci

Kenneth Jablonski, Clerk of Commission

RoA Coto2zs4 A419 VS 57

M.R.17534-—Inre: Bruce F. Bowman. Disciplinary Commission.

The motion by Administrator of the Attorney

Registration and Disciplinary Commission to order a

mental examination of respondent Bruce F. Bowman

pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 760 is allowed. The

examination shall be conducted by a physician chosen

from a panel of physicians selected and maintained by

the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts.

Ordered by the Court.

FILED

JUN 29 2001

SUPREME COURT CLERK

RoA C000255 A520 US 58

State of Illinois

Supreme Court

1, JULEANN HORNYAK, Cierk of the Supreme Court of the State of

Illinois, and keeper of the records, files and Seal thereof do hereby

certify the foregoing to be a true copy of an order entered today by

the Supreme Court of Illinois in a certain cause entitled:

In re: )

)

Bruce F. Bowman __)

) Atty. Reg. & Disc. Comm.

Respondent ) 011A2001

)

M.R. 17534 )

)

filed in this office on the 11" day of May A.D. 2001

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and

affixed the Seal of said court this 29" day of June 2001

/s/ Juleann Hornyak _ Clerk

Supreme Court of the State of Illinois

C000256

RoR C006256, mailing 2578 A321-322 VS 59

Resp, Ex.24 RoA C0W25% fAz2yY US59

BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD OF THE ATTORNEY

REGISTRATION AND DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION

In the matter of:

)

BRUCE F. BOWMAN ) Commission No. 01 IA 2001

)

Attorney-Respondent, ) ;

No. 264881 )

ORDER

THIS MATTER coming on calendar pursuant to a motion by

the Respondent for a rehearing as to prior rulings made by the chair

concerning his motion to strike the Administrators Rule 253 report

and barr witnesses from being called by the Administrator, with

arguments being filed by both the Respondent and the Administrator,

and after a review of those arguments,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The motion by the Respondent for a reconsideration and

rehearing of this Chair’s orders made at the status hearing of October

17 and placed in a written order dated October 18, 2001 is denied.

The Clerk of the Commission shall forward this order

to all parties of record.

ENTER

/s/ John M. Steed

John M. Steed, Chair of the Hearing Panel

Date entered: November 15, 2001

FILED

Nov 20 2001

Atty Reg & Disc Comm

Chicago 0000762

Ro C0072 A238 US

SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS

SUPREME COURT BUILDING

SPRINGFIELD 62701

JULEANN HORNYAK FIRST DISTRICT OFFICE

Clerk of the Court 20" Floor

(217) 782-2035 September 24, 2001 —160N. LaSalle St.

CHICAGO 60601

TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICE (312) 793-1332

FOR THE DEAF TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICE

(217) 524-5132 FOR THE DEAF

(312) 793-1333

Mr. Bruce F. Bowman

1741 West Galena Blvd.

Aurora, IL 60506

TODAY THE COURT ENTERED THE FOLLOWING ORDER:

M.R. 17534-—Inre: Bruce F. Bowman. _ Disciplinary Commission

The motion by Bruce F. Bowman for leave to file reply

instanter is allowed.

The motion by Bruce F. Bowman to vacate the Court’s order

of examination and for certain other relief is denied.

Orders entered by the Court.

cc: Ms. Christine P. Anderson

Ms. Julie Mark

Mr. Kenneth Jablonski, One Prudential Plaza

Roh C 600677 A444 . gaoer7

ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT RULES, January 200i, ARDC Rules

Gray Book, 1-28-2002 Hearing Respondent Exhibit 15

Page 16, January 2001 Illinois Supreme Court Rules, ARDC Rules

RULE 753 Inquiry, Hearing and Review Boards

(b)

(c)

Filing a Complaint. A complaint voted by the Inquiry Board

shall be prepared by the Administrator and filed with the

Hearing Board. The complaint shall reasonable inform the

attorney of the acts of misconduct he is alleged to have

committed.

Hearing Board

(1)

(2)

There shall be a Hearing Board. It shall consist of

members of the bar of Illinois and nonlawyers

appointed by the Commission to serve annual terms as

commissioners of the court. Members hall be

appointed to the Board in a ratio of two lawyers for

each nonlawyer.

The Hearing Board may act in panels of not less than

three members each, as designated by the Commission.

The Commission shall also designate one of the lawyer

members of each panel as chairperson. The majority

of a panel shall constitute a quorum and the

concurrence of a majority shall be necessary to a

decision. In the absence of the chairperson of a panel

US 62

at a hearing, the lawyer member present shall serve as

acting chairperson.

(3) The hearing panels shall conduc* tiearings on

complaints filed with the Board and on petitions

referred to the Board. The panel shall make findings

of fact and conclusions of fact and law, together with a

recommendation for discipline, dismissal of the

complaint or petition, or non disciplinary disposition.

The Hearing Board may order that it will administer a

reprimand to the respondent in lieu of recommending

disciplinary action by the court.

Page 19, January 2001 Illinois Supreme Court Rules, ARDC Rules

RULE 758 ;

Mental Disability or Addiction to Drugs or Intoxicants

(a) Petition. Ifthe Inquiry Board has reason to believe that an

attorney admitted to practice in the State is incapacitated from

continuing to practice law by reason of mental infirmity,

mental disorder, or addiction to drugs or intoxicants, the

Administrator shall file a petition with the Hearing Board

requesting a hearing to determine whether the attorney is

incapacitated and should be transferred to disability inactive

status pending the removal of the disability, or be permitted to

continue to practice law subject to conditions imposed by the

court. | US 63

(b)

(c)

Hearing and Review Procedure. The hearing and review

procedure shall be the same as provided in Rule 753 for

disciplinary cases. The Administrator and the attorney may

consent to a transfer to disability inactive status under the

procedure set fort in Rule 762 (a).

Transfer to Disability Inactive Status. Ifthe court

determines that the attorney is incapacitated from continuing

to practice law, the court shall enter an order transferring the

attorney to disability inactive status until further order of the

court. The court may impose reasonable conditions upon an

attorney’s continued practice of law warranted by the

circumstances.

(

Page 20, January 2001 Illinois Supreme Court Rules, ARDC Rules

RULE 760. Appointment of Medical Experts

(1)

(2)

In any proceeding under Rule 757, 758, 759, or 770 upon

motion of the administrator or the attorney, the Court may

order a mental or physical examination of the attorney. Such

examination shall be conducted by a member of a panel of

physicians chosen for their special qualifications by the

Administrative Office of the Illinois Court.

The examining physician shall prepare a report of his

examination and copies of the report shall be given to the

Court, the Hearing Board, the Administrator, and the attorney.

US 6Y

(3) | The Administrator, the attorney or the Hearing Board may call

the examining physician to testify. A physician so called shall

be subject to cross-examination.

(4) The cost of the examination and the witness fees of the

physician if called to testify, shall be paid from the

Disciplinary Fund.

Page 42, January 2001, Illinois Supreme Court Rules, ARDC Rules

RULE 235.

Motion in Regard to Pleadings. All motions in regard to pleadings

shall be made in writing prior to hearing. Rulings on motions shall be

made by the chair of the panel or in a manner as the chair shall

determine. Technical objections to pleadings shall not be favored and

a pleading shall not be held defective unless the alleged defect results

in actual prejudice to the objecting part. No oral arguments shall be

allowed on motions. The movant may submit written suggestions

with citations of authority in support of the motion and the other party

may submit counter suggestions within 7 days after receipt of the

movants suggestions. All defects in pleadings, either in form or

substance, shall be deemed waived if not objected to before hearing.

RULE 251

Discovery. Except as provided herein, discovery practice shall be in

accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure and the Rules of the

Supreme Court. vee

US 645

VS ae aR Te ee a NN eT

ae

RULE 253

Disclosure of Witnesses. Within 28 days of service of the complaint

upon respondent, the Administrator and the attorney-respondent shall

file a report disclosing the name, address and telephone numbers of

any and all persons who have knowledge of facts which are the

subject of the proceeding, including but not limited to the character or

reputation of the attorney-respondent. Upon becoming aware of the

identity of additional persons with knowledge, the Administrator and

attorney-respondent shall file a further report disclosing their name,

address and telephone number. The Hearing Board shall not allow

the Administrator or the attorney-respondent to offer the testimony of

any person, the identity and location of whom the Administrator or

attorney-respondent failed to disclose pursuant to this rule.

RULE 260.

Prehearing Conferences

(a) Prehearing Conference. A prehearing conference shall be

held at the offices of the Attorney Registration and

Disciplinary Commission in every case filed before the

Hearing Board. As soon as practicable after the filing of the

complaint or petition, a member of the Hearing Board who has

been designated Chair in the case shall schedule and preside

over the prehearing conference. The respondent or petitioner,

counsel for respondent or petitioner if any, and counsel for the

US €6

Page 43, January 2001, Iilinois Supreme Court Rules, ARDC Rules

Administrator shall personally attend the prehearing

conference. Upon a showing of good cause, the Chair may

excuse the respondent or petitioner from attending the

prehearing conference.

(e) Status Conferences.

In addition to formal prehearing conferences, the Chair may,

within his sound discretion, schedule status conferences to be held in

person or by telephone.

RULE 276

Exhibits. Each party must appear at hearing with all documentary

exhibits prepared in the following manner:

US 6]

ILLINOIS COMPILED STATUTES, 735 ILCS 5/2-607

5/2-607. Bills of particulars

§ 2-607 Bills of particulars. (a) Within the time a party is to

respond to a pleading, that party may, if allegations are so wanting in

details that the responding party shall be entitled to a bill of

particulars, file and serve a notice demanding it. The notice shall

point out specifically the defects complained of or the details desired.

The pleader shall have 28 days to file and serve the bill of particulars,

and the party who requested the bill shall have 28 days to plead after

being served with the bill.

VS 62